By John Friend
In mid-April, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a potentially game changing case that will likely have ramifications not only for hundreds of American patriots who attended the Jan. 6 (J6) protests at the U.S. Capitol, but also former President Donald Trump.
Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article
Hundreds of “J6ers” have been maliciously targeted by the Biden Department of Justice, having the entire weight of the U.S. justice system thrown at them for participating in a political protest that has been dishonestly characterized by the mainstream mass media and political establishment as an “insurrection.”
Former President Trump, who is facing numerous politically motivated state and federal prosecutions, is also being targeted by far-left prosecutors and Deep State actors for his role in the Jan. 6 fracas. The former president and leading 2024 presidential contender has been accused of having spearheaded an insurrection to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
A key provision invoked in the federal prosecution of over 300 J6 defendants is a federal obstruction statute passed in the wake of the Enron scandal known as 1512(c)(2). At the heart of the case before the Supreme Court, known as Joseph Fischer v. U.S., is whether federal prosecutors are justified in applying 1512(c)(2), which criminalizes obstructing or impeding an official proceeding in a corrupt manner, to J6 defendants.
According to CBS News, prior to Jan. 6, federal prosecutors never invoked “the law in cases that did not involve evidence tampering, as the first provision of the measure prohibits altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a document.”
However, in the aftermath of Jan. 6, the law “has been levied against more than 330 defendants who breached the building where Congress had convened a joint session to tally states’ electoral votes.”
The controversial statute has also been levied against Trump, who has been accused by federal prosecutor Jack Smith of obstructing Congress’s counting of Electoral College votes as well as conspiring to obstruct the official congressional proceeding on Jan. 6, in addition to two other charges. Trump has pleaded not guilty to those charges.
The statute was enacted after the outside auditing and accounting firm, working for energy giant Enron, was shown to have destroyed incriminating evidence against the company.
Defense attorneys for Joseph Fischer—who was handed a seven-count indictment in 2021 after he claims he was pushed by the raucous mob on Jan. 6 into a police line and eventually the U.S. Capitol building itself where he remained for roughly four minutes—are urging the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the federal statute, which critics of the DOJ insist has been weaponized and misused against J6 attendees.
Fischer’s attorneys have argued that the statute was designed to target “discrete acts intended to affect the availability of evidence” used in an official proceeding or investigation. In fact, 1512(c)(2) was enacted by Congress “to protect the integrity of investigations and evidence,” Fischer’s lawyers told the court, and the Biden DOJ’s invocation of the statute is “breathtaking” and unconstitutional.
“Anything that affects or hinders a proceeding falls within the government’s definition,” defense attorneys wrote in filings before the Supreme Court. “But that definition encompasses lobbying, advocacy, and protest, the very mechanisms that citizens employ to influence government.”
Indeed, many have noted the blatant hypocrisy and double standards on display in the federal prosecution of J6ers, while similar disruptions and protests by left-wing groups and lawmakers go unpunished, unless they are directed against Israel.
Investigative reporter Julie Kelly recently argued that the statute “has been and will continue to be selectively used against Jan. 6 protesters and not other demonstrators who engage in similar conduct—particularly those aligned with Democratic Party interests.”
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out the hypocrisy during oral arguments when he asked federal prosecutors whether or not 1512(c)(2) could also be applied to someone who pulled a fire alarm before an important congressional vote, as Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) did late last year, or hecklers in Congress or at the Supreme Court regularly do.
As it stands, the Supreme Court appears divided over the issue while arguments before the nation’s top court continue. A decision, which will no doubt have tremendous ramifications for J6 defendants as well as former President Trump, is not expected until later this summer.
If justice is to prevail, the Supreme Court must recognize the malicious manner in which the Biden DOJ has abused 1512(c)(2) in its politically motivated prosecution of American patriots who participated in the rowdy protest of Jan. 6, 2021, in the aftermath of an extremely controversial election, the results of which millions still question to this very day.
Leave a Reply